Subaru Crew: Suggestions for Subaru

ateixeira

Here's one: make the PZEV engine from California available in other markets. Also, it's only sold on the Outback right now, how 'bout putting it on some other models?

I'd be curious to know how well the PZEV model sells.

-juice

rsholland

As we all know, the new entry-level Legacy i, and probably the entry-level Outback too, still comes with a 4EAT, but now with SportShift capability. The question is: Should they have offered a 5EAT, but without the SportShift feature, instead?

Consider the audience: I bet the SportShift feature will rarely if ever be used by those customers; also a 4EAT sounds "older" than a 5EAT, which sounds more "state-of-the-art." Would it not have made more sense for Subaru to offer a 5EAT sans SportShift instead for that model? From a marketing standpoint, I think it would have made more sense to offer the 5EAT.

Consider the competition: The base Accord offers a 5-speed automatic w/o any SportShift capability. I think(?) the same holds true for base Camrys and Altimas too.

Bob

simon_tx

Bob,

I'm not sure I have an opinion which makes more sense other than to say I really don't understand the purposed of the EAT with sport shift.

I know it seems to be the thing for caramkets to do, but every person I know that has a Acura or VW or whatever with a sport shift type arrangement never use it. Truthfully, I don't think that is that much of selling point for most automobiles.

My general opinion is that if you want to shift gears for yourself then you should buy a MT.

Having said that, I don't understand why anyone would offer a 4 speed auto anymore.

ateixeira

Most customers don't notice the number of gears, but they will notice SportShift. Maybe that's why Subaru picked that route.

Any how, once again, I find it amazing how many different powertrain variations Subaru offers for such a tiny company.

Streamline, baby! 5EAT on all models. VTD on all models. Sportshift on all models. Streamline!

-juice

rsholland

A 4-speed automatic is less expensive than a 5-speed automatic. That's the only reason to offer it.

However, if you add the SportShift feature to a 4-speed automatic, it's probably about the same in costs to a 5-speed automatic w/o a SportShift feature. A 5-speed automatic will make better use of the engine's power, should be more economical, and it is a better *marketing* feature too.

Bob

simon_tx

is some type of sequential manual gearbox for the WRX or maybe that B9 (that's kind of a roadster right?)

ateixeira

Is it better for marketing? I dunno. 5 is just the number after 4. It's better in practical terms, especially for efficiency.

"SportShift" sounds better and can more easily be marketed, though. It may be less useful, but bean counters might argue it'll sell more cars.

My wife wants SportShift more than the 5th cog, I can tell you that.

-juice

njswamplands

i always wondered how in the world the word sports got into car. i have a sports car but its so small that i cant bring along any sports gear. now they call trucks SUVs. i get the utility and i guess you can haul your sports stuff but it aint sporty ( whatever that is )???. oh and they love athletic for cars also. geez i really break a sweat pushing that gas pedal down and using cruise control. sportshift should be reserved for MT as at least you are moving around when shifting.

dcm61

Did anyone notice that the '05 Legacy i is the only SportShift model without VTD? The '03 and '04 Legacy GT has a 4EAT with SportShift and VTD.

DaveM

rsholland

No I didn't notice that.

Bob

goneskiian

sounds like a Steven Wright skit though. LOL! ;-)

Why is it that we park on driveways and drive on parkways?

ateixeira

The # of combinations boggles the mind. Good thing we have Dave around, our model year-by-year Encyclopedia.

-juice

dcm61

Someone has to cover for Bob the slacker. ;-)

DaveM

nygreg

Most people buying the base model will not know the difference (or care) between a 4EAT and 5EAT. They will notice the "sport shift" feature, but, will rarely use it. FWIW, an auto with sport shift is good for those folks who live/work in the city where a MT is a pain, but who like to shift for themselves. Me - my next car will be a MT. Also, the latest and greatest feature is not always better. Simple, easy to use and reliable is best. Give me a drivers car - a powerful 4 cylinder (turbo H4?), 5MT, analog gauges, manual controls (with the exception of the drivers seat) and a good sound system. Don't need leather, or navigation. I'm happy.

Greg

nygreg

The weak link in the Subaru chain during snowy conditions is, of course, the tires. Subaru should offer an option during the purchase of a new car to buy 4 snow tires complete with wheels. Price point should be $450-$599. I bet Subaru will make a nice penny on this and people will really be blown away and safer by the car's performance in snow with the correct tires. Would this be a first for auto manufacturers?

Greg
P.S. sorry if this has been mentioned before. I have not followed this thread as I didn't consider myself in a position to make suggestions until now.

cusafr

Not a bad idea especially in the North Country.

In the South I would like to see better OEM tires. A real all season tire. Something like Dunlop 5000 or Michelin Pilot Sport A/S.

CUSAFR

merrycynic

I live in the north east, but, would like the same as Cusafr.

bluesubie

I would like to see adjustable side bolsters. The XT's seats are a little too wide on the twisties.

-Dennis

rsholland

I'm hoping the next-generation Forester will be built on its own dedicated platform, and no longer be an offspring of the Impreza platform.

I'm hoping it will have a wheelbase ~ 103in. Only then will the lack of rear passenger room be addressed. That criticism of rear passenger legroom is a complaint the Forester just will not be able to shake if it remains the same size.

As to whether it will give up nimbleness by increasing the wheelbase, I say look at the EVO with a wheelbase ~ 103in. Everyone who has driven the EVO says it's cat-like nimble. It's all a matter of how the suspension and steering are tuned.

Bob

p0926

Bob- I'm not in favor of changing the exterior dimensions of the Forester. If they can manage to stretch the wheelbase by 3 inches so the backseat legroom issue is addressed then fine. Personally, I appreciate that the Forester has thus far resisted the current industry trend of each succeeding model growing in size. As it is, I love the Forester's compact dimensions, nimble feel and tossability and would hate to see any of that changed.

-Frank P.

rsholland

I understand your point, and I know juice will agree with you too. But the fact is, the only real criticism of the Forester -- and it's widespread -- is the lack of rear passenger legroom.

If Subaru want to keep Forester sales about where they are, then keep it the same size. If they want to significantly increase their sales of the Forester, make it larger.

I'm absolutely convinced that's a big reason why the CRV is so successful. Yes, Honda is a much bigger company, yadda, yadda; but the size of the vehicle is a big reason for its success.

Bob

dcm61

A Forester with a longer wheelbase is called an Outback. ;-)

DaveM

rsholland

I said a 103" wheelbase not a 105" wheelbase.

The Forester will appeal to those who value a boxy shape, whereas the Outback will appeal to those who prefer wagon proportions.

Bob

dcm61

Yeah, I know Bob. Just giving you a hard time. ;-)

DaveM

rsholland

nimble feel and tossability and would hate to see any of that changed.

As I said in my first post, there's no reason that has to change. It's just a matter of suspension and steering fine-tuning.

Bob

zman

What they said (nygreg & cusafr)

Zman

p0926

I disagree Bob. I think it just seems that the rear legroom is the subject of widespread criticism. That's because it and the styling are about the only two areas that anyone can find to complain about. Even most reviewers rate the rear legroom as adequate. At most, adding 3 inches might increase sales by 10%.

I also think that the main reason the CRV sells so well is because it's a Honda (that and the cutesy picnic table touches). I bet that if Honda sold the Forester and Subaru sold the CRV, the sales figures would be almost opposite what they are now.

-Frank P.

rsholland

I bet for everyone who agrees you with about the rear legroom, there are three or four people who disagree. You can start with my wife, who drives one. That's the only feature she doesn't like, and she feels very strongly about it.

If you visit other car threads here, and the Forester comes up in discussion, you can bet that rear leg room will eventually works its way into the discussion. It's the number one issue most people have against the Forester. I'm convinced of that.

Bob

merrycynic

Perhaps a bit off topic, but, I wouldn't mind a tiny bit more space in my WRX wagon.

rsholland

If you have suggestions for Subaru, this is the thread for it.

Bob

subearu

more legroom and more seating what the 7 seater is supposed to address?

-Brian

p0926

Bob- I'm not saying that the Forester wouldn't benefit form more rear legroom, I'm just not willing to make sacrifices in other areas to achieve it. And do you honestly think that the Forester's sales would more than triple if it gained 3 inches of legroom? Sounds a bit fantastical to me ;-)

-Frank P.

rsholland

But it also addresses many other items to, none of which are any interest to many Forester customers (such as 3 rows of seating, and a much larger footprint).

Bob

rsholland

triple, but I could see the sales perhaps double, or even increase 50%. That's assuming they have the production capability to do so.

Bob

subearu

Japan? Would a larger size affect it's sales?

-Brian

rsholland

It may, but Honda also sells the CRV there. I don't know how their sales are over there. However, North America is by far FHI's biggest market, so I would think they would cater to our desires first. I could be wrong.

Bob

rsholland

if you ask the typical small SUV customer (not the gearheads here), what they like least about the Forester, I bet lack of rear leg room tops the list.

Bob

subearu

it took them *forever* to cater to the U.S. market and bring over a H6 and a turbo model.

-Brian

njswamplands

paisan

if you ask the typical small SUV customer (not the gearheads here), what they like least about the Forester, I bet lack of rear leg room tops the list.


I've brought a ton of people to look at them. #1 reason they don't stick around and check em out? Rear seat room. #2 reason? No v6/h6 power option available. (they don't understand or care about turbos, even if they are as powerful or more than a v6/h6)

-mike

dcm61

Bob and Mike actually agree on something? ;-)

Edit: Or is that Mike and Colin that rarely agree?

DaveM

paisan

It' both, I rarely agree with anyone. Hence I'll be racing an automatic Impreza Love to prove the impossible is possible.

-mike

beanboy

Forester height as well, want something a little higher off the ground, equal to minivans.

merrycynic

Gee, that's exactly what I don't want in my slightly larger Impreza STi wagon, a higher center of gravity.

ateixeira

This hits close to home. The wife wants something bigger but I want something still compact and nimble. For me the current XT is perfect, but the wife may use her veto power.

Forester could remain the same size but get a longer wheelbase. Bob mentioned the EVO, well, look at the Outlander, same 103.3" wheelbase from the EVO. 179" overall length is also about 4" longer. Could that be the ideal size for a compact SUV?

I test drove one, and sure enough the back seat is more welcoming. Actually what makes a big difference is the wide doors make ingress/egress much easier.

The catch is the cargo area was smaller, length-wise. Also, Outlander has not sold as well as the Forester, and really it's closer in concept to the Forester than the CR-V is. So you can't guarantee increased sales. Mitsu bumped power to 160hp but still needs big rebates, and it *still* sells slowly.

So I say keep it compact. Stretch the wheelbase 2" just to quiet the critics, but more importantly make that rear door 2" longer as well. Make the whole vehicle 2" longer so the cargo area stays big.

-juice

hondafriek

juice didn't she get the last new car, Veto power be damned, it's your turn now, go for the Xt even if you have to live in it:-)

  Cheers Pat.

hayduke01

If Subaru is coming out with a 7-passenger SUV then growing the Forester would seem to leave less differentiation between the two vehicles.

I'd prefer that it's growth be in the form of improvements, rather than its dimensions. We already have less weight and more strength in '03, then the XT in '04.

Not every vehicle is right for every driver. If the added legroom comes at the cost of added weight and/or reduced cargo area then that's not a good thing.

I did one road trip with four adults, and rear seat leg room was adequate.

nygreg

I must be Abbynormal or something. I prefer 4 cylinders (refined and fairly powerful please).

Greg

ateixeira

Yeah Pat, it even has a cheese slicer (hood scoop) in the kitchen. And it sure can cook!

-juice

rangner

what about making Subarus wider? It seems lack of width in the rear seat makes it difficult to fit 3 adults in the back of an Outback for instance.

Doesn't the flat configration of the engines make the car wider? Then why are they so narrow?

It would make 'em handle better anyhow.

Eric